Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read of historical change records and what each record contains, but says nothing about ordering, the effect of limit (default 100), pagination, truncation, or any permission requirements for reading change history.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and has no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description is the only source of information, and it supplies only the theme of the response. An agent cannot determine pagination behavior, error cases, or parameter formats from it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description only vaguely implies store scoping through 店铺的, adding no format or meaning for store_id, and the limit parameter is not mentioned at all despite defaulting to 100.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (店铺的变更记录 / store change history) and specifies the record contents: who, when, and what changed. It is not a tautology of the tool name, but it never contrasts itself with the closely related sibling get_restaurant or update_restaurant.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_restaurant, search_restaurants, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The audit-trail framing implies a use case but the guidance is left entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.